I think we pretty much agree on this. When you say that gender inequality was the (social) contract we had until recently, I completely agree. And I would emphasize that women were part of that contract; they made and kept it the same as men did.

As to the need for labor contributing to the demand for gender equality, I also agree, but would add that that was only one factor. Others were industrial capitalism which produced surplus value which produced "service industries" and leisure time. Medical advancements which increased the likelihood that chidren would survive to adulthood were another factor and the resulting increase in population which obviated the need for continual pregnancy on the woman's part was another. The resulting medical advances in contraception were yet another.

One interesting thing about gender inequality that I think is particularly important today is that the history of family life shows that industrial capitalism is what took men away from their families. Under feudalism, men, women and children lived in the same place. The man typically did the farming and artisanry while the mother did most of the childcare, cooking and spinning and weaving. Men were very much part of the family and took part in childcare in a secondary capacity. Industial capitalism, because it organized a large labor force at a single location outside the home required that men leave home for many hours of every day in order to earn a wage which totally altered their relationship with their wives, children and homes. We're still dealing with that one.

another Father's Day insult to fathers. I thought that, since Father's Day had passed, we might get to wait til next year for one of these, but I guess not. Yep, men who somehow stumble into fatherhood have no clue about what to do and only want to tune out the wife and the brats and get on with their narcissistic little world. I could point out that there is a boatload of sociology and psychology that directly contradicts Keillor's nonsense, but who cares for facts when a good male-bashing myth is so much more fun?

Of course this is the same GK who used to write 'Mr. Blue' for Salon where he could trash fathers more often than just on Father's Day. If it's still in the archives, check out his response to "Knocked Up" in about 1998, the angry letters he got and the follow-up about a year later. Just one example.

Your post says a lot about you, but almost nothing about men in general. As I so often find myself saying on these pages, there's a lot of actual information on this subject. Sociologists have thought about the effects of marriage and children on men for a long time and have produced a lot of data on the subject. (In the internet age, I find it astonishing that posters don't do the simple work of reading a little before they post opinions.) Actually, men who marry generally want to do so and they want to do so for the very effects marriage and children have on them. Marriage and children tend to make men calmer, more responsible, less likely to engage in risky behavior, less likely to do drugs, commit crimes, etc. than their unmarried counterparts. Islam is Fascism, your letter is a brief for perpetual adolescence. Most men find at some point that they want to put that behind them and they use marriage and children to help them accomplish it.

Podhoretz is Jewish. I wonder if anything in modern history occurs to him to suggest that mass murder is not a good idea.

levels of violence in your immediate neighborhood have nothing to do with how you feel about your life or future.

and the Supremes unanimously rejected his claim of broad undifferentiated executive privilege. This should be interesting. The current Supremes are all hot for maximum executive power, but US v. Nixon was pretty clear, so........

as a practical matter what Conyers in talking about is for Congress to issue a citation for contempt of Congress. That's a criminal violation similar to contempt of court. Rather than actually bring the person to trial on the contempt charge, it would probably take an expedited route to the SC, since it's a "case or controversy" even though no one's been convicted. Once there, the SC would rule on the claim of executive privilege. If the ruling were against Bush, then the people would have to appear and testify and produce whatever documents. If they didn't, they'd go to jail for contempt of Congress. It could all happen pretty quickly, given the expedited procedures.

I'm in the mainstream on something. The DLC has done more damage to the Democratic party than the Reps ever could and Hillary is just one more example.

But that doesn't mean she couldn't become president. As of now, I think anything could happen come Nov.'08. Giuliani would lose the Christian Right. Bloomberg could garner Perot-like numbers (19% in 1992), but no one is sure where they'd come from. So even someone as unpopular as HRC could come away as a plurality president, just like Bill did. Right now it's a crap shoot.

between Libby and Clinton is that Libby got his day in court, with an attorney and was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of 12 citizens. That judgment was affirmed on appeal. None of that happened in Clinton's case. Not only was he not convicted, he wasn't even charged.